What about the whole Trayvon situation?

What about the whole Trayvon situation?

Created by Geha on Jul 1, 2013

219 votes

Click on an option to vote

The fat guy is guilty and should be jailed

It was self-defense; Trayvon was up to no good

“SPEBSQSA”

Since: Aug 08

Northern Virginia

#418 Jul 20, 2013
Oneal wrote:
<quoted text>
I did in fact read the article, all of it, which is why I responded in what you deemed a "long-winded" manner.
I just wish you would put as much thought into your posts, wiggley, because it seems all you can do is argue that your opinion is the only one that could be correct.
Given that I'm the only one arguing a non-existant point about the murder/manslaughter of a person walking from the store to his house regardless of his or her race or political orientation, I'd say I can't be wrong...no one has entered a non-racial or non-political counter arguement.

Since: Feb 08

Grand Rapids, MI

#419 Jul 20, 2013
Something else that people keep ignoring that I heard while listening to GZ's 911 call. He did an excellent job of describing the suspicious behavior of Martin. The way he handled the phone call is a good indicator that his intent all along was to just stay at distance and let the police handle the matter.

I honestly listened and couldn't see how he could have handled it much differently at the time. Although maybe in the future he'll be less willing to make himself known.

“SPEBSQSA”

Since: Aug 08

Northern Virginia

#420 Jul 20, 2013
lanyard wrote:
<quoted text>That doesn't matter. All that matters is that TM assaulted GZ, and was shot in the process in a justifiable homicide. Even if GZ were profiling TM it wouldn't matter. GZ did nothing to justify a reasonable fear of danger on TM's part.
Yep, just as I've said all along...you have no idea what the SYG law says or means...

Since: Feb 08

Grand Rapids, MI

#421 Jul 20, 2013
Mr Wiggley wrote:
<quoted text>
...
TM had rights that night also and I damn sure want my same rights if something like that happens to me.
There's no evidence to indicate that TM would have perceived a reasonable threat or danger from GZ.

TM committed assault and was shot for it in a justifiable homicide.

He had no right to assault GZ, and when he did GZ was within his rights to shoot him. The forensic evidence supports this. End of story.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#422 Jul 20, 2013
Mr Wiggley wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep, just as I've said all along...you have no idea what the SYG law says or means...
Does'nt matter, as it was'nt a part of the defense.....only Nancy Grace, Al Sharpton and YOU, like talking about it.....The trial was about basic Self Defense.....

“SPEBSQSA”

Since: Aug 08

Northern Virginia

#423 Jul 20, 2013
lanyard wrote:
<quoted text>That doesn't matter. All that matters is that TM assaulted GZ, and was shot in the process in a justifiable homicide. Even if GZ were profiling TM it wouldn't matter. GZ did nothing to justify a reasonable fear of danger on TM's part.
You know soooo little about the SYG law...
Of course it matters who felt threatened first...

Since: Feb 08

Grand Rapids, MI

#424 Jul 20, 2013
Mr Wiggley wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep, just as I've said all along...you have no idea what the SYG law says or means...
Actually it's you who either doesn't know what your talking about, or is just plain dishonest.

TM's Right to SYG was not infringed upon in any way. GZ did not force him to stay, threaten him, or prevent him from leaving in any way. TM assaulted GZ. Unless you can show evidence proving that Z was a reasonable danger to him (and in all these pages you've yet to do so), then the rest is just drivel. Instead, all you've been doing is accuse anyone who disputes your ridiculous claim as ignorant, when it's you who demonstrates that ignorance.

I've studied SYG law quite thoroughly, and discussed it with lawyers who would defend someone under it. I know more about it than you apparently do.

Unless of course you have some evidence that the prosecution couldn't find that Z was a danger to T.

Didn't think so.

“SPEBSQSA”

Since: Aug 08

Northern Virginia

#425 Jul 20, 2013
lanyard wrote:
<quoted text>There's no evidence to indicate that TM would have perceived a reasonable threat or danger from GZ.
TM committed assault and was shot for it in a justifiable homicide.
He had no right to assault GZ, and when he did GZ was within his rights to shoot him. The forensic evidence supports this. End of story.
No, TM never had a chance to tell anyone that he perceived a reasonable threat...but he might have...but he got killed before he could tell you or me or anyone.

Not good huh??

“SPEBSQSA”

Since: Aug 08

Northern Virginia

#426 Jul 20, 2013
Go Blue Forever wrote:
<quoted text>Does'nt matter, as it was'nt a part of the defense.....only Nancy Grace, Al Sharpton and YOU, like talking about it.....The trial was about basic Self Defense.....
The SYG law is written as an extention of the "castle" laws. The point is you are allowed to defend yourself in a Public place just as you are allowed to defend your home.
Any mention of self defense would automatically fall under one or both of the two.

Since: Mar 09

Grandville, MI

#427 Jul 20, 2013
Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Fortunately, there probably isn't a chance that you've been wrong about anything else.
Thanks!
But sometimes I am wrong, and I admit to it.
It is nice to know that you think that most of the time I am correct.

“SPEBSQSA”

Since: Aug 08

Northern Virginia

#428 Jul 20, 2013
lanyard wrote:
<quoted text>Actually it's you who either doesn't know what your talking about, or is just plain dishonest.
TM's Right to SYG was not infringed upon in any way. GZ did not force him to stay, threaten him, or prevent him from leaving in any way. TM assaulted GZ. Unless you can show evidence proving that Z was a reasonable danger to him (and in all these pages you've yet to do so), then the rest is just drivel. Instead, all you've been doing is accuse anyone who disputes your ridiculous claim as ignorant, when it's you who demonstrates that ignorance.
I've studied SYG law quite thoroughly, and discussed it with lawyers who would defend someone under it. I know more about it than you apparently do.
Unless of course you have some evidence that the prosecution couldn't find that Z was a danger to T.
Didn't think so.
Absolutely TM's right to SYG was denied. He had every right to go to the store and go home without being followed or reported. Once he was reported and followed by someone who was armed and did not identify himself, TM's right to defend himself fell square into the SYG law. Especially because he had committed no crime and there is no evidence he was about to.
Please read the law...please.

Since: Feb 08

Grand Rapids, MI

#429 Jul 20, 2013
Mr Wiggley wrote:
<quoted text>
No, TM never had a chance to tell anyone that he perceived a reasonable threat...but he might have...but he got killed before he could tell you or me or anyone.
Not good huh??
It doesn't matter what he "perceived" so much as was the evidence indicated. The 911 call that Z made is excellent evidence that he did not demonstrate a threat as he told dispatch that he wanted the police to meet up with him.

Also, there were no offensive indications of a sort on Z, while M's did show such consistencies. There was however evidence on Z of M's attack.

Since: Mar 09

Grandville, MI

#430 Jul 20, 2013
Mr Wiggley wrote:
<quoted text>
No, TM never had a chance to tell anyone that he perceived a reasonable threat...but he might have...but he got killed before he could tell you or me or anyone.
Not good huh??
His girlfriend said she was on the phone with him!
Did you miss her testimony at the trial?
She was the KEY witness,......cant believe you missed her testimony.
Google it!

Since: Feb 08

Grand Rapids, MI

#431 Jul 20, 2013
Gville Jim wrote:
<quoted text>His girlfriend said she was on the phone with him!
Did you miss her testimony at the trial?
She was the KEY witness,......cant believe you missed her testimony.
Google it!
According to him that's just hearsay from an unreliable witness.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#432 Jul 20, 2013
Mr Wiggley wrote:
<quoted text>
The SYG law is written as an extention of the "castle" laws. The point is you are allowed to defend yourself in a Public place just as you are allowed to defend your home.
Any mention of self defense would automatically fall under one or both of the two.
You've mentioned SYG at least 25 times, don't you find that a bit obsessive? Especially since it was'nt featured in the trial?...Too much pro-Trayvon HLN, CNN and MSNBC.....

“SPEBSQSA”

Since: Aug 08

Northern Virginia

#433 Jul 20, 2013
Go Blue Forever wrote:
<quoted text>You've mentioned SYG at least 25 times, don't you find that a bit obsessive? Especially since it was'nt featured in the trial?...Too much pro-Trayvon HLN, CNN and MSNBC.....
SYG is an extention of the right to self defense under the "castle laws" only it includes public places like parks, malls, parking lots, etc etc...your right to safety in your own space.

I didn't write it nor do I claim it is not confusing.
Chip

Belvidere, IL

#434 Jul 20, 2013
Mr Wiggley wrote:
<quoted text>
And if GZ had kept his distance TM would only have been high on drugs...certainly not a reason to be killed.
Bad, weak try...go crawl back under your rock where you belong.
Sure, how dare Zimmerman get out of his car and relay the street sign to the 911 operator, too bad he had a gun otherwise Thugvon could have just killed him for this horrible crime.

“SPEBSQSA”

Since: Aug 08

Northern Virginia

#435 Jul 20, 2013
Gville Jim wrote:
<quoted text>His girlfriend said she was on the phone with him!
Did you miss her testimony at the trial?
She was the KEY witness,......cant believe you missed her testimony.
Google it!
Really Jim, did you honestly believe any thing she said?? Really??
Chip

Belvidere, IL

#436 Jul 20, 2013
Mr Wiggley wrote:
<quoted text>
No, TM never had a chance to tell anyone that he perceived a reasonable threat...but he might have...but he got killed before he could tell you or me or anyone.
Not good huh??
Didn't bother listening to the trial did you. He was on the phone with his friend and was saying racial slurs about Zimmerman. What kind of brain dead moron interprets this as he felt threatened? Answer: YOU

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#437 Jul 20, 2013
Mr Wiggley wrote:
<quoted text>
SYG is an extention of the right to self defense under the "castle laws" only it includes public places like parks, malls, parking lots, etc etc...your right to safety in your own space.
I didn't write it nor do I claim it is not confusing.
Did you even watch the trial?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Grand Rapids Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News College football roundup: Ohio State starts the... (Sep '13) 12 hr stewart scott 2,337
Local News Women (Apr '09) Tue Alex 2,398
Daane Development towing next to Score Sportsbar Mon Doosh Bagge 1
You Decide Jul 26 You Decide 1
Searching for Richard Painted Horse... Jul 23 Anonymous 1
News New state law enables Holland SmartZone district Jul 23 District 1 1
News Ground broken on Consumers Leadership Center Jul 22 Who 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Grand Rapids Mortgages